Groser flips the bird to the Judiciary and NZ Laws

Written By: - Date published: 9:04 am, November 13th, 2015 - 13 comments
Categories: Abuse of power, accountability, business, capitalism, democratic participation, International, Public Private Partnerships, you couldn't make this shit up - Tags:

In the case taken to our Courts last September to force Groser to compy with a Law of New Zealand (and at cost to the taxpayer through having to defend him) Justice Collins said of the Official Information Act:

the Act plays a significant role in New Zealand’s constitutional and democratic arrangements. It is essential the Act’s meaning and purpose is fully honoured by those required to consider the release of official information.”

BUT Tim Groser is above the law so:

In relation to Cabinet mandates, one of the categories requested, the Minister says the documents have been collated but no officials will be available to review them until after 5 February 2016 – conveniently the first date on which the TPPA can be signed following the expiry of President Obama’s 90-day notification to the US Congress of his intention to do so. Professor Kelsey notes there is no guarantee when or if any of those documents will actually be released.”

Choosing that date is stupid, arrogant o rboth. This is going back to Court, and the coincidence of that date will NOT be lost on the Judge.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1511/S00199/groser-avoids-principled-reconsideration-of-tppa-oia.htm

Groser is SO certain the TPP is a GREAT deal for NZ he is doing everything he can to hide the evidence of it from us all. We cannot participate in our democracy when it is hidden from us.

13 comments on “Groser flips the bird to the Judiciary and NZ Laws ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. savenz 1
    13 November 2015 at 10:14 am

    +100 – BUT Tim Groser feels he is above the law

    • Trey 1.1
      13 November 2015 at 5:33 pm

      Everyone in the Natzi party feel they are above the law. But what do you expect when that attiude comes from their leader (monkey see monkey do). Key can do anything he likes from pulling ponytails to covering up for paedophiles because he knows the msm and the courts will let them get away with it.

  2. travellerev 2
    13 November 2015 at 10:21 am

    Maybe that is why they are training our army to fight “aggressive” demonstrators in Murchison.

  3. RedLogix 3
    13 November 2015 at 11:29 am

    Credit to both tracey and Scoop for this.

    Does anyone know what legal remedies are available to the Courts here? Part of me fantasizes Justice Collins ordering plods up to whichever floor of the Beehive Groser’s office is on, to drag him off to prison, but reality is probably less dramatic.

    • tracey 3.1
      13 November 2015 at 12:21 pm

      They are seeking a Declaration so possibly the Judge can declare that Groser hands it all over immediately?

    • Craig H 3.2
      13 November 2015 at 10:38 pm

      An injunction which enforces the original order, or if the judge is annoyed enough, Contempt of Court + whatever sentence the judge wants to hand out. Imprisonment until the documents are released, for example.

      • RedLogix 3.2.1
        13 November 2015 at 10:43 pm

        A Minister in Contempt? Would that would be a first?

      • tracey 3.2.2
        20 November 2015 at 7:18 am

        I couldn’t find anything to suggest the powers stretched that far CRaig H. Where did you find that info? The Order asked him to revisist his decision, which he did.

        • Craig H 3.2.2.1
          24 November 2015 at 8:03 pm

          There’s very little out there on common law contempt of court, but non-compliance with a court order is one of the common reasons for it, and there are few restrictions or guidelines on its use (the main restriction is that the maximum sentence is 3 months imprisonment, but that could be imposed again after that 3 months if the court felt it necessary).

          Not saying that the Court would go that far, but it’s always an option where injunctions and court orders are in force if they are not being complied with.

          • tracey 3.2.2.1.1
            25 November 2015 at 9:12 am

            I think it is different when you are talking about a Declaration Craig H. I think the “punishments” are much more limited. And remember, that Groser, has complied (insofar as it went), because he did revisit the decision.

  4. Jon Pawley 4
    13 November 2015 at 3:44 pm

    Groser is really focussed his gold statue, eh?

  5. Timeo 5
    19 November 2015 at 10:39 pm

    I’m sure that the courts will let them get away with it. They say you don’t go to court to seek justice but to receive a sentence (judgement) which may have nothing to do with justice. And this is true.